WI : What if the Confederates adopted the Gatling gun

Neirdak

Banned
The new machine gun was first designed in 1861, but was not ready for testing until July of 1862, when it was test fired at Indianapolis. The test was done as a demonstration for local military officers, and political officials.

After the test, a report was sent to the Governor of Indiana by a number of men he had asked to investigate the new gun. In the report, the Governor was advised to purchase some guns for further testing in the battlefield. The following reasons were given for the recommendation:

"The barrels are so arranged as to fire independently of each other, so that an injury to one does not affect the others. There are no complicated parts, and the common soldier can keep it in order as readily as he can his musket. It is so substantial as to endure without injury the same usage as an ordinary field-piece. The discharge can be made with all desirable accuracy as rapidly as one hundred and fifty times per minute, and may be continued for hours without danger, as we think, from overheating. Two men are sufficient to work the gun, and two horses can carry it over the field with the rapidity of cavalry."

From http://www.americancivilwarstory.com/gatling-gun.html

Instead of the governor of Indiana, the test is made in Raleigh and in front of the governor of North Carolina, after all Gatling was a Tar Heel.

Zebulon Baird Vance recognizes this new object as a revolutionnary weapon and decides to buy a few of them for North Carolina regiments, before to invite Gatling to further demonstrations in Richmond.
 
Last edited:
They didn't have the industrial capacity to make enough of them, nor the ammo making capacity to make enough ammo.

They make a few, more Yankees are killed, the North immediately starts mass producing them.....
 
Don't know about Gatling guns.

However, if John Browning still makes his way to Georgia after Confederate independence. An interesting armaments industry might crop up...

Block action rifles, repeaters, semi-automatic pistols. The forebearers of modern machine guns included as well.

Maybe Turtledove was on to something there! :eek::p
 
Don't know about Gatling guns.

However, if John Browning still makes his way to Georgia after Confederate independence. An interesting armaments industry might crop up...

Block action rifles, repeaters, semi-automatic pistols. The forebearers of modern machine guns included as well.

Maybe Turtledove was on to something there! :eek::p

After which the Yankees reverse engineer it and mass produce it. The CSA would have no such capability. The war is then shorter with a US victory.
 
But I'm thinking more of the sense of a post-independence scenario.

That is an interesting thought though, had the CS ever captured any Gatling guns and substantial ammo for it during the war?
 
But I'm thinking more of the sense of a post-independence scenario.

That is an interesting thought though, had the CS ever captured any Gatling guns and substantial ammo for it during the war?

In which case the Yankees still reverse engineer it and mass produce it. The South didn't have any industry to speak of for a long, long time after the ACW. It didn't have it before the war either and its success would likely make it even less likely than OTL to develop one.
 
Export

If the CSA did have, and use, a Gatling gun or the like, I agree tht the Union would be mass producing it in quantity. But, if it was used successfully on a real battlefield, we might see the European powers adapting it in large numbers--especially if the gun showed itself useful in trench warfare.

So--might THAT get people thinking about how to deal with fortified positions with Gatling guns defending them?

Oh...in a post independence scenario, the CSA will be able to buy the guns in quantity from Europe.
 
The CSA simply doesn't have enough industry to mass produce their own modern armaments. And the middle of a war is no time to start building up a manufacturing base.
 
The south actually did have something like it called the Williams gun and according to Wikipedia about 40 were made.
 
If they could use it correctly they could win their independence before the US can mass produce it. Let's say the Confederates keep it saved for a special moment, and use it during Antietam or a similar battle, destroying the Union army. What would be the reaction to a devastating loss by a Confederate "superweapon"?
 
If they could use it correctly they could win their independence before the US can mass produce it. Let's say the Confederates keep it saved for a special moment, and use it during Antietam or a similar battle, destroying the Union army. What would be the reaction to a devastating loss by a Confederate "superweapon"?

They wouldn't be able to make enough of them to make a difference before the Union finds out about it and reverse engineers it. Saving "superweapons" for a "special moment" works far better in movies than real life.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If they could use it correctly they could win their independence before the US can mass produce it. Let's say the Confederates keep it saved for a special moment, and use it during Antietam or a similar battle, destroying the Union army. What would be the reaction to a devastating loss by a Confederate "superweapon"?
There was "The" Confederate army. Lee's.
There were lots of Union armies worth the name. Manpower advantage.
 
A Gatling gun needs to use brass cartridges if you want it to be anything more than a showpiece. The Union, with its massive industrial superiority over the csa would have found it impossible to supply their army with brass cartridges for every rifle, let alone for rapid firing weapons like the Gatling gun.

The csa didnt stand a chance of producing more than a handful of Gatling guns, and would have had a horrible time producing the ammo for more than about one gun, as a WAG.

It's like 'what if the Nazis had whole fleets of Me262s?'. The answer is they simply didnt have the resources to do it, and if they had tried it would have meant reallocating so much effort from things that WORKED, that the war would have been over sooner.

If TimeTravelling Boers had given the CSA 100,000 Gatling guns and all the ammunition they could us, the CSA couldnt get the ammo to the front fast enough.

Csa logistics were.... primitive.
 
If they could use it correctly they could win their independence before the US can mass produce it. Let's say the Confederates keep it saved for a special moment, and use it during Antietam or a similar battle, destroying the Union army. What would be the reaction to a devastating loss by a Confederate "superweapon"?


It was invented only in 1861, in such a situation, they wouldn't purposefully "save" it for a special moment.

Though, with the timing of the invention of it, if it Gatling had been in the SOuth, the effect would be one of a surprise weapon.


Even if he had had to order all his machines from the North before the outbreak of war, the South could produce some.


In the linked article it looks like there was ONE instance of two guns being used in battle in the Civil War.

What if the North had none, and the South had a few?


It would give the SOuth ONE technological advantage...


It would take time for the any of them to be captured, reverse engineered and introduced by the North.

THe guns are more likely to be destroyed by cannon fire than captured.
 
A Gatling gun needs to use brass cartridges if you want it to be anything more than a showpiece. The Union, with its massive industrial superiority over the csa would have found it impossible to supply their army with brass cartridges for every rifle, let alone for rapid firing weapons like the Gatling gun.

The csa didnt stand a chance of producing more than a handful of Gatling guns, and would have had a horrible time producing the ammo for more than about one gun, as a WAG.

...

Csa logistics were.... primitive.


It would also be interesting to consider what if the North had been far more aggressive in adopting the Gatling Gun?

So as to have even more of an advantage North.


A Civil War were Lee leaves Pennsylvania an already defeated man, with nothing but a broken mob of survivors.
 
It was invented only in 1861, in such a situation, they wouldn't purposefully "save" it for a special moment.

Though, with the timing of the invention of it, if it Gatling had been in the SOuth, the effect would be one of a surprise weapon.


Even if he had had to order all his machines from the North before the outbreak of war, the South could produce some.


In the linked article it looks like there was ONE instance of two guns being used in battle in the Civil War.

What if the North had none, and the South had a few?


It would give the SOuth ONE technological advantage...


It would take time for the any of them to be captured, reverse engineered and introduced by the North.

THe guns are more likely to be destroyed by cannon fire than captured.

Even if the North fails to produce even a single one the South would have so few it would make little difference.
 
They wouldn't be able to make enough of them to make a difference before the Union finds out about it and reverse engineers it. Saving "superweapons" for a "special moment" works far better in movies than real life.

You're right, I don't know why I didn't think that. They don't need to make more, though. Let's say they graba few and use them right away in time the ANV seems invincible. Remember morale dropped badly after a single battle (seven days), it wouldn't be a stretch for the north people to go in a panic if, again, the south has a "superweapon"
 
There's also the question of an operational doctrine for the things.

In the Franco-Prussian War the Mitrailleuse volley fire weapons were used as artillery pieces, and were generally ineffective. The Confederacy may have been a bit smarter with Gatlings, but only after a trial and error period.

Wiki seems good on the French guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrailleuse

As Dathi THorfinnsson says, they couldn't have made the cartidges for them, anyway.
 
As many posters have said, the CSA could not manufacture enough Gatlings and ammunition to make a difference overall - in a battle or two maybe, but not really changing anything. Also, the question is what scarce resources/industry get diverted to this effort meaning less of something else.

The Union could have had many more cartridge rifles (either single shot breech loaders or multishot) but the chief of ordnance said no because it would encourage soldiers to waste ammunition. having Gatlings would be more of the same, so need to change ideas at the top - the Union could produce enough of these to make a difference. BTW an even bigger advantage than rate of fire for breech loading rifles is you can reload in any position, muzzle loaders are very difficult to load except when standing still and making a good target.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You do realize Gatling was loyal, right?

From http://www.americancivilwarstory.com/gatling-gun.html

Instead of the governor of Indiana, the test is made in Raleigh and in front of the governor of North Carolina, after all Gatling was a Tar Heel.

Zebulon Baird Vance recognizes this new object as a revolutionnary weapon and decides to buy a few of them for North Carolina regiments, before to invite Gatling to further demonstrations in Richmond.

You do realize Gatling was loyal, right?

Best,
 
Top