oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,556
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 8, 2020 0:10:27 GMT
Both the North and the South employed a Muzzle Loading Rifle as the main infantry weapon during the US Civil war. What if the hide bound, highly conservative brass in the Ordnance Bureau had approved adoption of the Spencer Rifle as the standard infantry weapon in 1861.
On March 6, 1860, Christopher Miner Spencer received a patent on a lever-action repeater with a rotating block, which fed 7 rimfire cartridges into the chamber via a tubular magazine bored through the butt stock.
In early 1861 Spencer had demonstrated his rifle to a trials board at the Washington Navy Yard. The Navy Department put in an initial order for 700 Spencer rifles and bayonets, by war end the navy had bought 10,000. The Navy settled on the 56-56, a round that fired a 350-grain .540- to .555-diameter (depending on the manufacturer) bullet propelled by 45 grains of black powder for muzzle velocity of 1,200 fps and a muzzle energy of 1,125 ft-lbs. The .58-caliber Springfield, firing a 500-grain bullet propelled by 60 grains of black powder, for a muzzle velocity of 950 fps and a muzzle energy of 1,000 ft-lbs. So Springfield and Spencer ballistics were similar.
Though ballistics were similar, the Spencer had one great advantage — it could be loaded and fired in a fraction of the time that was necessary for either of the other two guns. Depending on the skill of the shooter, the Spencer could fire fifteen to twenty shots in one minute. This is five to seven times faster than muzzle-loaders, at three shots per minute. The Spencer rifle, however, could hold seven rounds, allowing one to shoot seven times before having to reload.
Last point the confederacy could not reproduce the Spencer Cartridge. The south just did not have the industrial capacity. That would mean the Confederacy would be dependent on the British to supply their "Spencer" ammunition. With the Union blockade becoming more effective every day that was not a viable solution, in my opinion.
With a breach loader repeater the Union tactics would no longer have to rely on the old Napoleonic linear formations and therefore the muzzle loader Confederates would be overwhelmed by rate of fire. The Union's ability to take cover and shoot from a prone position combined with rushes in the Union attack would have materially reduced union casualties. In defense, for the Union, would be like the western front with the Union dug in with a rapid fire rifles taking the place of machine guns.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,690 
Likes: 45,767
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 8, 2020 3:48:02 GMT
Both the North and the South employed a Muzzle Loading Rifle as the main infantry weapon during the US Civil war. What if the hide bound, highly conservative brass in the Ordnance Bureau had approved adoption of the Spencer Rifle as the standard infantry weapon in 1861.
On March 6, 1860, Christopher Miner Spencer received a patent on a lever-action repeater with a rotating block, which fed 7 rimfire cartridges into the chamber via a tubular magazine bored through the butt stock.
In early 1861 Spencer had demonstrated his rifle to a trials board at the Washington Navy Yard. The Navy Department put in an initial order for 700 Spencer rifles and bayonets, by war end the navy had bought 10,000. The Navy settled on the 56-56, a round that fired a 350-grain .540- to .555-diameter (depending on the manufacturer) bullet propelled by 45 grains of black powder for muzzle velocity of 1,200 fps and a muzzle energy of 1,125 ft-lbs. The .58-caliber Springfield, firing a 500-grain bullet propelled by 60 grains of black powder, for a muzzle velocity of 950 fps and a muzzle energy of 1,000 ft-lbs. So Springfield and Spencer ballistics were similar.
Though ballistics were similar, the Spencer had one great advantage — it could be loaded and fired in a fraction of the time that was necessary for either of the other two guns. Depending on the skill of the shooter, the Spencer could fire fifteen to twenty shots in one minute. This is five to seven times faster than muzzle-loaders, at three shots per minute. The Spencer rifle, however, could hold seven rounds, allowing one to shoot seven times before having to reload.
Last point the confederacy could not reproduce the Spencer Cartridge. The south just did not have the industrial capacity. That would mean the Confederacy would be dependent on the British to supply their "Spencer" ammunition. With the Union blockade becoming more effective every day that was not a viable solution, in my opinion.
With a breach loader repeater the Union tactics would no longer have to rely on the old Napoleonic linear formations and therefore the muzzle loader Confederates would be overwhelmed by rate of fire. The Union's ability to take cover and shoot from a prone position combined with rushes in the Union attack would have materially reduced union casualties. In defense, for the Union, would be like the western front with the Union dug in with a rapid fire rifles taking the place of machine guns.
I remember the Union adapting the Spencer repeating rifle in The Britannia's Fist Trilogy by Peter G. Tsouras, but do not know much if else about it. but the Union having no Napoleonic linear formations means they can move more freely over the battlefield as presume. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,369
Likes: 11,992
|
Post by stevep on Jul 8, 2020 10:57:37 GMT
Both the North and the South employed a Muzzle Loading Rifle as the main infantry weapon during the US Civil war. What if the hide bound, highly conservative brass in the Ordnance Bureau had approved adoption of the Spencer Rifle as the standard infantry weapon in 1861.
On March 6, 1860, Christopher Miner Spencer received a patent on a lever-action repeater with a rotating block, which fed 7 rimfire cartridges into the chamber via a tubular magazine bored through the butt stock.
In early 1861 Spencer had demonstrated his rifle to a trials board at the Washington Navy Yard. The Navy Department put in an initial order for 700 Spencer rifles and bayonets, by war end the navy had bought 10,000. The Navy settled on the 56-56, a round that fired a 350-grain .540- to .555-diameter (depending on the manufacturer) bullet propelled by 45 grains of black powder for muzzle velocity of 1,200 fps and a muzzle energy of 1,125 ft-lbs. The .58-caliber Springfield, firing a 500-grain bullet propelled by 60 grains of black powder, for a muzzle velocity of 950 fps and a muzzle energy of 1,000 ft-lbs. So Springfield and Spencer ballistics were similar.
Though ballistics were similar, the Spencer had one great advantage — it could be loaded and fired in a fraction of the time that was necessary for either of the other two guns. Depending on the skill of the shooter, the Spencer could fire fifteen to twenty shots in one minute. This is five to seven times faster than muzzle-loaders, at three shots per minute. The Spencer rifle, however, could hold seven rounds, allowing one to shoot seven times before having to reload.
Last point the confederacy could not reproduce the Spencer Cartridge. The south just did not have the industrial capacity. That would mean the Confederacy would be dependent on the British to supply their "Spencer" ammunition. With the Union blockade becoming more effective every day that was not a viable solution, in my opinion.
With a breach loader repeater the Union tactics would no longer have to rely on the old Napoleonic linear formations and therefore the muzzle loader Confederates would be overwhelmed by rate of fire. The Union's ability to take cover and shoot from a prone position combined with rushes in the Union attack would have materially reduced union casualties. In defense, for the Union, would be like the western front with the Union dug in with a rapid fire rifles taking the place of machine guns.
I remember the Union adapting the Spencer repeating rifle in The Britannia's Fist Trilogy by Peter G. Tsouras, but do not know much if else about it. but the Union having no Napoleonic linear formations means they can move more freely over the battlefield as presume.
If the union army is willing to train their men to operate in such a method and can afford to do so. Your got a very small professional army trying to manage a huge mass of volunteers and later conscripts and that is always a problem in such a case. For instance the union army continued to use largely Napoleonic line and column tactics throughout the conflict despite having their army increasingly armed with rifles.
Adopting the Spencer in large numbers would give the union a huge potential advantage but armies don't always make use of such advantages. Its likely that this would occur in some formations where commanders saw the advantage and had the opportunity to train their men for such a role. There could be problems with more conservative higher commanders and also fears about how a more dispersed formation might be vulnerable to a sudden cavalry attack which was often an issue in the 19thC in terms of such a tactical change.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,556
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 8, 2020 11:12:14 GMT
Steve P wouldn't the greatly increased rate of fire decimate any mounted cavalry charge?
Dismounted cavalry, without breach loading repeaters, would fare worse than regular infantry IMO.
A few examples of the effectiveness of the repeaters combined with adopting the new tactics should convince the other commanders to adopt the same winning methods. Nothing succeeds like success.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,369
Likes: 11,992
|
Post by stevep on Jul 8, 2020 13:05:10 GMT
Steve P wouldn't the greatly increased rate of fire decimate any mounted cavalry charge?
Dismounted cavalry, without breach loading repeaters, would fare worse than regular infantry IMO.
A few examples of the effectiveness of the repeaters combined with adopting the new tactics should convince the other commanders to adopt the same winning methods. Nothing succeeds like success.
Very likely but I did say a surprise charge, i.e. coming from an unexpected direction because say there's cover there or the infantry are looking elsewhere because of other activity.
Plus its a case of what the senior officers fear might happens as much as what's practical. Also as I say both armies in the civil war kept to an army still very much operating in Napoleonic roles, despite widespread access to rifles. In part I suspect because it was easier to train people in the old form line mode that in operating in loose formation which makes new challenges to troops and also there might be a fear of a loss of control over the men and they could more easily see panic or people seeking to avoid combat.
Steve
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,556
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 8, 2020 13:56:46 GMT
Very likely but I did say a surprise charge, i.e. coming from an unexpected direction because say there's cover there or the infantry are looking elsewhere because of other activity.
Plus its a case of what the senior officers fear might happens as much as what's practical. Also as I say both armies in the civil war kept to an army still very much operating in Napoleonic roles, despite widespread access to rifles. In part I suspect because it was easier to train people in the old form line mode that in operating in loose formation which makes new challenges to troops and also there might be a fear of a loss of control over the men and they could more easily see panic or people seeking to avoid combat.
Steve
Steve, you keep using the term Rifles. Is that your short hand for repeating Rifles? My point is not the rifling but the rifling combined with a magazine fed repeating rifle using a brass cartridge that allows a significant increase in rate of fire and reliance on linear tactics over the muzzle loading Rifle like the Springfield and the Enfield.
I came across a Union Outfit called The Lightning Brigade, under Col John T. Wilder, that combined "mounted Infantry", the Spencer repeating Rifle and non linear tactics to outstanding success at Hoover's Gap, Chattanooga, Davis's Cross Roads,
Chickamauga and the Battle of Selma in April 1865, the only battle Bedford Forrest ever lost.
Wilder's Lightning Brigade served in the West, mainly Tennessee. The Lightning refers to their 7 shot Spencers repeaters they surprised many a Confederate regiment.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,690
Likes: 45,767
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 8, 2020 14:14:04 GMT
Very likely but I did say a surprise charge, i.e. coming from an unexpected direction because say there's cover there or the infantry are looking elsewhere because of other activity. Plus its a case of what the senior officers fear might happens as much as what's practical. Also as I say both armies in the civil war kept to an army still very much operating in Napoleonic roles, despite widespread access to rifles. In part I suspect because it was easier to train people in the old form line mode that in operating in loose formation which makes new challenges to troops and also there might be a fear of a loss of control over the men and they could more easily see panic or people seeking to avoid combat. Steve
Steve, you keep using the term Rifles. Is that your short hand for repeating Rifles? My point is not the rifling but the rifling combined with a magazine fed repeating rifle using a brass cartridge that allows a significant increase in rate of fire and reliance on linear tactics over the muzzle loading Rifle like the Springfield and the Enfield.
I came across a Union Outfit called The Lightning Brigade, under Col John T. Wilder, that combined "mounted Infantry", the Spencer repeating Rifle and non linear tactics to outstanding success at Hoover's Gap, Chattanooga, Davis's Cross Roads,
Chickamauga and the Battle of Selma in April 1865, the only battle Bedford Forrest ever lost.
Wilder's Lightning Brigade served in the West, mainly Tennessee. The Lightning refers to their 7 shot Spencers repeaters they surprised many a Confederate regiment.
Looking at the Lightning Brigade (US Army of the Cumberland 1863) Wikipedia page it seems that Col John T. Wilder was a smart man as he felt that muzzle-loaded rifles were too difficult to use traveling on horseback. Like Rosecrans, he also believed that the superiority of repeating rifles were worth their price in return for the great increase in firepower. The repeating rifles also had the standoff range similar to the standard infantry Lorenzes, Springfields, and Enfields in use by the Army of the Cumberland. He felt the repeating and breech loading carbines in use by the Federal cavalry that lacked the accuracy at long range that his brigade would need. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,556
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 8, 2020 16:13:05 GMT
Looking at the Lightning Brigade (US Army of the Cumberland 1863) Wikipedia page it seems that Col John T. Wilder was a smart man as he felt that muzzle-loaded rifles were too difficult to use traveling on horseback. Like Rosecrans, he also believed that the superiority of repeating rifles were worth their price in return for the great increase in firepower. The repeating rifles also had the standoff range similar to the standard infantry Lorenzes, Springfields, and Enfields in use by the Army of the Cumberland. He felt the repeating and breech loading carbines in use by the Federal cavalry that lacked the accuracy at long range that his brigade would need. From what I gather Col Wilder's brigade were Mounted Infantry. I think that means their horse was simply fast transport. They would dismount and proceed to contact with the opposition just like regular infantry. Unlike Cavlary, they were not expected to fight on horseback so the longer range rifle was of great value. The Cav used shorter range Carbines because they were as likely to fight mounted as not. However, at least in the US Cav, the distinction was becoming irrelevant as post Civil War the US had no Mounted Infantry so the Cav fought mounted or on foot as the tactical situation dictated. See Remington's "On the Skirmish Line" and Charles Schreyvoge "Western Frontier On The Skirmish Line" for what those lines actually looked like.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jul 9, 2020 0:47:32 GMT
No effect; the U.S. just didn't have the manufacturing base for such.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,369
Likes: 11,992
|
Post by stevep on Jul 9, 2020 10:01:25 GMT
Very likely but I did say a surprise charge, i.e. coming from an unexpected direction because say there's cover there or the infantry are looking elsewhere because of other activity.
Plus its a case of what the senior officers fear might happens as much as what's practical. Also as I say both armies in the civil war kept to an army still very much operating in Napoleonic roles, despite widespread access to rifles. In part I suspect because it was easier to train people in the old form line mode that in operating in loose formation which makes new challenges to troops and also there might be a fear of a loss of control over the men and they could more easily see panic or people seeking to avoid combat.
Steve
Steve, you keep using the term Rifles. Is that your short hand for repeating Rifles? My point is not the rifling but the rifling combined with a magazine fed repeating rifle using a brass cartridge that allows a significant increase in rate of fire and reliance on linear tactics over the muzzle loading Rifle like the Springfield and the Enfield.
I came across a Union Outfit called The Lightning Brigade, under Col John T. Wilder, that combined "mounted Infantry", the Spencer repeating Rifle and non linear tactics to outstanding success at Hoover's Gap, Chattanooga, Davis's Cross Roads,
Chickamauga and the Battle of Selma in April 1865, the only battle Bedford Forrest ever lost.
Wilder's Lightning Brigade served in the West, mainly Tennessee. The Lightning refers to their 7 shot Spencers repeaters they surprised many a Confederate regiment.
No I basically meant rifles period. From what I've seen in a number of discussions on a USCW site with a few exceptions the infantry on both sides were still trained to form up in line and fire in the general direction of an enemy formation rather than actually aim at individual targets. There is an example where a unit commander hung some covering over the side of a barn, had his men fire at it from ~50' away and when he check there was only IIRC 3 balls hitting the target, of which one was ~10' above ground level.
The best example might be trent-war-possible-timeline-of-events-battles-and-outcome. Its inactive at the moment but the author started off with requests for comments from people on suggestions he makes about what is likely to happen and there is a lot of discussion of assorted factors including the supply of materials, training etc. A hell of a lot of information here. I think there's another example mentioned in it where an artillery crew were 'bothered' but not totally suppressed by a 'sniper' firing at them from 50' away which is a ridiculously short range for aimed rifle file. It seems that largely because of lack of training as men were rushed into the fronts the actual accuracy and use of any rifles was very poor. Another factor of course with black powder still being used is that very quickly visibility is greatly limited.
Steve
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,556
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 9, 2020 12:46:58 GMT
No effect; the U.S. just didn't have the manufacturing base for such. Epichistory surely you mean The Confederacy? The North absolutely had the manufacturing base. It was one of the key strengths of the Union.
My point is the Confederacy would have to import every cartridge from the UK and therefore it would not be possible for the confederacy to move to a magazine fed repeating rifle for general infantry use.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,369
Likes: 11,992
|
Post by stevep on Jul 10, 2020 9:42:55 GMT
No effect; the U.S. just didn't have the manufacturing base for such. Epichistory surely you mean The Confederacy? The North absolutely had the manufacturing base. It was one of the key strengths of the Union.
My point is the Confederacy would have to import every cartridge from the UK and therefore it would not be possible for the confederacy to move to a magazine fed repeating rifle for general infantry use.
He probably means both sides. The north had a markedly larger industrial base but it was still highly dependent on imports from Europe for the 1st year or two to equip its large new army. By the end of the conflict local production was able to meet virtually all US needs for rifles. Doing this for a specific weapon, such as the Spencer would take longer so its not likely to be available for most of the army until say late 63/ early 64 say. Although limited deployment in a few units could have some dramatic effects, both in terms of casualties in some clashes and the restrictions it would place on rebel actions. If their unclear which enemy units have such a massive increase in firepower and can use it effectively their going to be a lot more cautious about attacks.
There is another reason why many military figures opposed multi-shot rifles. That is allowing a much greater rate of fire means soldiers will use up their supply of ammo markedly earlier. True if properly aimed their likely to win the battle by then. However, especially with troops with only limited training, many officers were worried their men would blaze away wildly and very quickly be left largely defenceless. There is only so much ammo a soldier can carry so this is an issue. Also since the US was tooling up from a relatively small base this is likely to increase demand for lead - which was largely imported I believe and also gunpowder which definitely was a vulnerable point.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jul 12, 2020 2:44:34 GMT
No effect; the U.S. just didn't have the manufacturing base for such. Epichistory surely you mean The Confederacy? The North absolutely had the manufacturing base. It was one of the key strengths of the Union.
My point is the Confederacy would have to import every cartridge from the UK and therefore it would not be possible for the confederacy to move to a magazine fed repeating rifle for general infantry use.
For modern fire arms, they didn't at all. As late as Gettysburg, over 50% of the Army of the Potomac was still using British or Austrian imports, with many even using converted muskets. It wasn't until late 1863 the U.S. figured out via industrial espionage in the UK how to use modern metal casting techniques to properly make rifles. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,556
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 12, 2020 14:02:18 GMT
Epichistory surely you mean The Confederacy? The North absolutely had the manufacturing base. It was one of the key strengths of the Union.
My point is the Confederacy would have to import every cartridge from the UK and therefore it would not be possible for the confederacy to move to a magazine fed repeating rifle for general infantry use.
For modern fire arms, they didn't at all. As late as Gettysburg, over 50% of the Army of the Potomac was still using British or Austrian imports, with many even using converted muskets. It wasn't until late 1863 the U.S. figured out via industrial espionage in the UK how to use modern metal casting techniques to properly make rifles. Epichistory, would you please cite your source(s)? I'd like to read what was written because that contradicts what I thought I knew about the US Springfield Arsenal and the fact the Spencer was available in 1860.
I am very intrigued about "industrial espionage". Thanks
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,369
Likes: 11,992
|
Post by stevep on Jul 12, 2020 14:32:18 GMT
For modern fire arms, they didn't at all. As late as Gettysburg, over 50% of the Army of the Potomac was still using British or Austrian imports, with many even using converted muskets. It wasn't until late 1863 the U.S. figured out via industrial espionage in the UK how to use modern metal casting techniques to properly make rifles. Epichistory, would you please cite your source(s)? I'd like to read what was written because that contradicts what I thought I knew about the US Springfield Arsenal and the fact the Spencer was available in 1860.
I am very intrigued about "industrial espionage". Thanks
There is a comment or two on it in the thread I linked to, although that is now about 50 pages long IIRC. Even apart from complete rifles the north was also importing rifle barrels from Britain because they were having problems producing them consistently. It appears there was some bribery or other activity to get details from one of the big British companies on how they actually do it.
|
|
