Why no inventor built a simple automatic weapon during the War Between the States?
- Thread starter Rachen
- Start date
Why did General Jackson had to die so early?
He was the only officer with the resolve and power to have been able to STOP General Pickett from carrying out that catastrophic mistake at Gettysburg.
Seriously, don't they know what was waiting for them on the top of that ridge? Three hours of concentrated artillery fire does not mean anything when you cannot confirm that the enemy has indeed been neutralized as a threat.
Most of those shells exploded near the cemetary and killed noncombatant personnel like horse handlers and couriers. Almost none of the Federal guns or caissons were destroyed during the bombardment.
General Pickett General Pickett, you son of a gun...
The last I heard, General Robert E. Lee was the commander of the confederate army of northern Virginia, not "Stonewall" Jackson.
Pickett's division was carrying out General Lee's orders. Not General Pickett's. The reason it was called "Pickett's charge", is because the men that marched across the field that day were mostly General Pickett's men. As a side note, Pickett hated Lee for the rest of his (Pickett's) life for destroying his division and "killing his boys".
Last edited:
I notice no one has mentioned that the North didn't manage to invent one either. Frankly there were technical limitations that had yet to be overcome, I believe, not necessarily the ones you might think.
First of all, weapons were already being mass produced on machinery from companies like Pratt & Whitney. Interchangeable parts, adequate finish, the works. But other things like heat treatment may not have quite been ready for automatic weapons. Also, the tolerances may not have been sufficient either. After all, there weren't any bolt action rifles either, were there?
Lots of things were just over the horizon. The Colt 1873 Single Action Army, for example. The first ones were made of wrought iron, I've been told. There were also teething problems with brass cases for rifles. They .45-70 ammunition you can buy now is of a little better quality. In the case of submachine guns or pistols, rimmed cartridges present some difficulties, although if a Colt Government Model can be made to work with .38 Special full wadcutters and every Russian/Soviet machine gun to work with a rimmed rifle round, that's apparently not such a big problem.
Although there was no lack of experimentation, everything is in short supply in wartime and that one was no exception.
Let's see. The war ended in 1865. In less than ten years there were highly successful cartridge repeaters. In about 25 years there were fully automatic weapons as well as bolt action designs that are still in use today. And in 45 years, the Colt .45 automatic appeared on the scene. Some Civil War veterans (on both sides) would have had the opportunity to experience all of those things.
First of all, weapons were already being mass produced on machinery from companies like Pratt & Whitney. Interchangeable parts, adequate finish, the works. But other things like heat treatment may not have quite been ready for automatic weapons. Also, the tolerances may not have been sufficient either. After all, there weren't any bolt action rifles either, were there?
Lots of things were just over the horizon. The Colt 1873 Single Action Army, for example. The first ones were made of wrought iron, I've been told. There were also teething problems with brass cases for rifles. They .45-70 ammunition you can buy now is of a little better quality. In the case of submachine guns or pistols, rimmed cartridges present some difficulties, although if a Colt Government Model can be made to work with .38 Special full wadcutters and every Russian/Soviet machine gun to work with a rimmed rifle round, that's apparently not such a big problem.
Although there was no lack of experimentation, everything is in short supply in wartime and that one was no exception.
Let's see. The war ended in 1865. In less than ten years there were highly successful cartridge repeaters. In about 25 years there were fully automatic weapons as well as bolt action designs that are still in use today. And in 45 years, the Colt .45 automatic appeared on the scene. Some Civil War veterans (on both sides) would have had the opportunity to experience all of those things.
I stand corrected.
Wow. I thought Lee would have thought better. After all, he has expertly orchestrated the Yankee whipping at Fredericksburg. Did he show any unusual symptoms at Gettysburg? Like fever, nausea, headache or stiff neck?
Because viral meningitis was prevalent on both sides and can really wreck havoc on a tactical officer's thought processes. And the road leading to Gettysburg from Chancellorsville was paved with a stifling summer heat and mosquitos.
Lee was an aggressive and audacious commander. He liked taking the battle to the enemy and he was good at it. At Gettysburg however he didn't have enough information to make a better decision. He also believed his troops were pretty much unstoppable. He didn't realize how decimated some of his regiments were. The artillery that was supposed to clean out the Union center went over their heads. He underestimated how many troops the north had or how well they were dug in. He took the fight to the enemy with everything he had and lost. That's all there was to it.
The first semiautos were based on existing designs. Browning's first semiautomatic was a modified lever action rifle that used gas to work the action, and that required smokeless powder. A gas operated BP weapon would require complete cleaning after very few shots.
The idea of a simple blowback action may seem obvious in retrospect, but it really required very original thinking. Who would have thought to design a rifle in which the bolt was held in battery by a spring?
The idea of a simple blowback action may seem obvious in retrospect, but it really required very original thinking. Who would have thought to design a rifle in which the bolt was held in battery by a spring?
Interesting how we went from a discussion of Why No Black Powder semi-or full auto firearms to a discussion of Lee at Gettyburg.
I have read that Lee had some serious health problems at the time, heart disease or something similar. Following Jackson's death the Army of Northern Virginia was reorganized into three corps with the inevitable reshuffling and breaking up of established relationships and the promoting of people who probably were promoted beyond their level of competence-Richard Ewell and A. P. Hill. I have read that Lee fought Gettyburg the way the Union generals had fought their battles-piecemeal attacks, vague orders from above-IIRC on the evening of July 1 Lee told Ewell to attack Culp's Hill "if practicable"-Ewell didn't. Then there was some serious wrangling between Lee and Longstreet.
Upon seeing the Union position Longstreet said "If General Meade is there we had better leave him alone." I read that after Fredericksburg Longstreet became a firm believer in the Tactical Defensive-find a strong position and let your enemy attack you. One of the Great Lessons of the Civil War that took a long time to learn was that the Defense had outrun the Attack-the great range of the rifled musket made the old Napoleonic tactics of massed charges ineffective and the old 18th Century practice of maneuvering till your enemy was in a bad position then striking at his exposed flank as Frederick II often did was more effective.
I have read that Lee had some serious health problems at the time, heart disease or something similar. Following Jackson's death the Army of Northern Virginia was reorganized into three corps with the inevitable reshuffling and breaking up of established relationships and the promoting of people who probably were promoted beyond their level of competence-Richard Ewell and A. P. Hill. I have read that Lee fought Gettyburg the way the Union generals had fought their battles-piecemeal attacks, vague orders from above-IIRC on the evening of July 1 Lee told Ewell to attack Culp's Hill "if practicable"-Ewell didn't. Then there was some serious wrangling between Lee and Longstreet.
Upon seeing the Union position Longstreet said "If General Meade is there we had better leave him alone." I read that after Fredericksburg Longstreet became a firm believer in the Tactical Defensive-find a strong position and let your enemy attack you. One of the Great Lessons of the Civil War that took a long time to learn was that the Defense had outrun the Attack-the great range of the rifled musket made the old Napoleonic tactics of massed charges ineffective and the old 18th Century practice of maneuvering till your enemy was in a bad position then striking at his exposed flank as Frederick II often did was more effective.
ScottRiqui
New member
Materials and machining might have allowed automatic weapons to come about slightly before they actually did, but sometimes you just need a "flash" of insight to bring it all together.
But your question is still a good one - I've often thought the same thing about other developments in math and science. Sometimes, you'll have two or more people coming up with the same mathematical or scientific insights within a few years of one another, working completely independently. I think it's true that sometimes, you have "an idea whose time has come".
For that matter, why did it take so long to come up with the theory of relativity? If you look at Einstein's original 1905 paper on special relativity, it's only about twenty-five pages long, and the mathematics required to describe special relativity doesn't go much beyond high-school algebra and freshman calculus. Any scientist or mathematician from the early 1800s would have understood it, had they seen it. Einstein's paper does reference Maxwell's electromagnetics equations, but even those had been around for over 40 years.
But your question is still a good one - I've often thought the same thing about other developments in math and science. Sometimes, you'll have two or more people coming up with the same mathematical or scientific insights within a few years of one another, working completely independently. I think it's true that sometimes, you have "an idea whose time has come".
For that matter, why did it take so long to come up with the theory of relativity? If you look at Einstein's original 1905 paper on special relativity, it's only about twenty-five pages long, and the mathematics required to describe special relativity doesn't go much beyond high-school algebra and freshman calculus. Any scientist or mathematician from the early 1800s would have understood it, had they seen it. Einstein's paper does reference Maxwell's electromagnetics equations, but even those had been around for over 40 years.
This seems to have become a "Rebel" vs "Yank" issue. The fact is that the C.S. couldn't even produce metallic ammunition. They threw away captured Spencers and Henrys as soon as captured ammo was exhausted because C.S. Ordnance could not make the cartridges or make the machinery to make them.
A bigger factor is the population numbers. Someone (Catton?) said that the South could have an army or could support an army; it could not do both.
Practical auto weapons awaited the development of smokeless powder, both because black powder fouled too much and because it did not have the necessary pressure spike to properly function an auto weapon. So even if some southern Browning or Maxim had invented a machinegun he could not have gotten it to work very well without smokeless powder.
Jim
A bigger factor is the population numbers. Someone (Catton?) said that the South could have an army or could support an army; it could not do both.
Practical auto weapons awaited the development of smokeless powder, both because black powder fouled too much and because it did not have the necessary pressure spike to properly function an auto weapon. So even if some southern Browning or Maxim had invented a machinegun he could not have gotten it to work very well without smokeless powder.
Jim
I have read that Lee had some "health issues" at the time, but it is likely an excuse for his failed attack. Pickett's charge was based on solid military tactics of the day. The enemy had been attacked on both flanks of it's line. Therefore both flanks would've been reinforced from the center, leaving the center as the weakest point. Solid reasoning. Problem was, Lee's men had to cross an open field that was over a mile long with no cover, under artillery fire the entire way in order to pull off this attack. The solid reasoning did not lend itself to the open terrain. Also I agree with Hawg. I believe that Lee started believing that his army was invencable.
Metallic cartridges. The South could not produce them. The North did, but even if a fully automatic weapon was designed, the black powder fouling would limit its usefulness. BTW, if one were designed, it would have been steam powered like the proposed Confederate aero plane (the inventor wanted to carpet bomb the Union armies, sink their squadron of ships and rain Greek fire on Northern cities 
).
As to the South winning the battles up to '63, they lost Fort Donelson to Grant in '62. This made holding Kentucky and Western Tennessee untenable. When Bragg and Kirby Smith attempted to recapture Kentucky, the campaign failed when Perryville was lost. Shiloh wasn't a Confederate victory and Beauregard withdrew the army to Corinth after that battle, leaving Grant in the field. Let's not forget New Orleans which was captured by Farragut in '62. All the way out west in New Mexico, Sibley's was losing to Canby at Glorietta Pass. Missouri was lost to the Confederacy at Pea Ridge (Elkhorn Tavern) in '62 too. Turning to Virginia and Lee, his invasion of Maryland didn't result in a victory at Antietam/Sharpsburg. Along the Atlantic coast, New Bern, NC was captured. Fort Pulaski in Georgia was captured.
Here are some Confederate Victories in 1862: Front Royal where Jackson beat Banks, Seven Days Battle, Fredericksburgh, Seccessionville (James Island near Charleston, SC).
Overall, I think the high water mark for the Confederacy was 1862. Had they won Perryville, Kentucky would have been theirs. From it they could threaten Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania. The North would have to garrison those states (Think political demands on the Fed gubmint from the governors and Congress) as opposed to going on the offensive. Had Pea Ridge been won, the Trans-Mississippi's resources would be available to the Confederacy. Finally, had Lee pulled off his invasion of Maryland and returned to Virginia without battle, it would have demonstrated to France and England the Confederacy's viability (like Saratoga did during the Revolution). Foreign recognition, aid and assistance would have made Union victory less likely. By 1863, it was already off the table for the European powers. England wouldn't and Napoleon III would not act without England's concurrent consent.
).As to the South winning the battles up to '63, they lost Fort Donelson to Grant in '62. This made holding Kentucky and Western Tennessee untenable. When Bragg and Kirby Smith attempted to recapture Kentucky, the campaign failed when Perryville was lost. Shiloh wasn't a Confederate victory and Beauregard withdrew the army to Corinth after that battle, leaving Grant in the field. Let's not forget New Orleans which was captured by Farragut in '62. All the way out west in New Mexico, Sibley's was losing to Canby at Glorietta Pass. Missouri was lost to the Confederacy at Pea Ridge (Elkhorn Tavern) in '62 too. Turning to Virginia and Lee, his invasion of Maryland didn't result in a victory at Antietam/Sharpsburg. Along the Atlantic coast, New Bern, NC was captured. Fort Pulaski in Georgia was captured.
Here are some Confederate Victories in 1862: Front Royal where Jackson beat Banks, Seven Days Battle, Fredericksburgh, Seccessionville (James Island near Charleston, SC).
Overall, I think the high water mark for the Confederacy was 1862. Had they won Perryville, Kentucky would have been theirs. From it they could threaten Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania. The North would have to garrison those states (Think political demands on the Fed gubmint from the governors and Congress) as opposed to going on the offensive. Had Pea Ridge been won, the Trans-Mississippi's resources would be available to the Confederacy. Finally, had Lee pulled off his invasion of Maryland and returned to Virginia without battle, it would have demonstrated to France and England the Confederacy's viability (like Saratoga did during the Revolution). Foreign recognition, aid and assistance would have made Union victory less likely. By 1863, it was already off the table for the European powers. England wouldn't and Napoleon III would not act without England's concurrent consent.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I've actually seen blow-back weapons fired with black powder, including a Sten gun. They become unusable normally before the first magazine is expended due to powder fouling.
A weapon that has to be broken down and cleaned every 15 shots so that it will continue to function isn't particularly useful, and can be very, very deadly to its owner in certain situations.
When Winchester and Remington started developing semi-automatic .22 and .25 caliber rifles in the late 1800s, they purposfully made them so that standard .22 and .25 ammunition couldn't be chambered because most of it at that time was still loaded with black powder.
A weapon that has to be broken down and cleaned every 15 shots so that it will continue to function isn't particularly useful, and can be very, very deadly to its owner in certain situations.
When Winchester and Remington started developing semi-automatic .22 and .25 caliber rifles in the late 1800s, they purposfully made them so that standard .22 and .25 ammunition couldn't be chambered because most of it at that time was still loaded with black powder.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"He was the only officer with the resolve and power to have been able to STOP General Pickett from carrying out that catastrophic mistake at Gettysburg."
If Longstreet couldn't change Lee's mind to send Pickett's division across the field, what makes you think Jackson could?
Lee admired and highly valued Jackson fighting ability, but he respected Longstreet's abilities as a counselor, sounding board, and confidant above all others. In some ways, they had almost a father-son relationship, something that I doubt anyone could have ever had with Thomas Jackson given his personality and his quirks.
Remember, Lee secured Longstreet's promotion ahead of Jackson.
And also remember, had Jackson been at Gettysburg, it's very likely that he and Lee wouldn't have been together at the time of Pickett's Charge -- he likely would have been leading his troops in either a diversionary attack designed to bleed off troops from the center, or he would have been otherwise attacking a softspot in the Union line as a back up.
As for Pickett, he was but one of THREE divisional commanders in the charge; the other two divisions were led by Brig. Gens. Pettigrew and Trimble. Pickett, as a Maj. Gen., was senior commander on the field.
He also accompanied his troops for a significant distance through the march (I really hesitate to call it a charge), but stopped well short of the final "high water mark."
Before anyone accuses me of calling Pickett a coward for stopping short, as the senior field commander you could not expect him to march right at the head of his troops the whole way. In fact had he, I'd have questioned his sanity..
"Wow. I thought Lee would have thought better. After all, he has expertly orchestrated the Yankee whipping at Fredericksburg. Did he show any unusual symptoms at Gettysburg? Like fever, nausea, headache or stiff neck?"
Funny you should say that. There are reports of Lee not feeling well at times during the battle, and some historians have speculated that he actually had a mild heart attack or mini-stroke that affected his judgement on the third day.
If Longstreet couldn't change Lee's mind to send Pickett's division across the field, what makes you think Jackson could?
Lee admired and highly valued Jackson fighting ability, but he respected Longstreet's abilities as a counselor, sounding board, and confidant above all others. In some ways, they had almost a father-son relationship, something that I doubt anyone could have ever had with Thomas Jackson given his personality and his quirks.
Remember, Lee secured Longstreet's promotion ahead of Jackson.
And also remember, had Jackson been at Gettysburg, it's very likely that he and Lee wouldn't have been together at the time of Pickett's Charge -- he likely would have been leading his troops in either a diversionary attack designed to bleed off troops from the center, or he would have been otherwise attacking a softspot in the Union line as a back up.
As for Pickett, he was but one of THREE divisional commanders in the charge; the other two divisions were led by Brig. Gens. Pettigrew and Trimble. Pickett, as a Maj. Gen., was senior commander on the field.
He also accompanied his troops for a significant distance through the march (I really hesitate to call it a charge), but stopped well short of the final "high water mark."
Before anyone accuses me of calling Pickett a coward for stopping short, as the senior field commander you could not expect him to march right at the head of his troops the whole way. In fact had he, I'd have questioned his sanity..
"Wow. I thought Lee would have thought better. After all, he has expertly orchestrated the Yankee whipping at Fredericksburg. Did he show any unusual symptoms at Gettysburg? Like fever, nausea, headache or stiff neck?"
Funny you should say that. There are reports of Lee not feeling well at times during the battle, and some historians have speculated that he actually had a mild heart attack or mini-stroke that affected his judgement on the third day.
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
On the subject of cartridge cases...
the kind of deep drawing of brass necessary to make cartridge cases larger than a pistol case wasn't possible at this time. It didn't truly become possible until the late 1800s, and even then balloon head cases, which are easier to draw than the solid head cases we have to day, stayed standard in commercial ammunition well into the 20th century.
Cartridge cases of the Civil War era, up through the early 1880s, were primarily drawn copper.
Copper is far softer and easier to work than brass, and it was possible to use it.
But, that comes at a price... Being far more maleable, copper "sticks" to the chamber a lot more tenaciously while there is pressure in the barrel, making a blowback weapon any larger than a .22 questionable at best.
And, because of the nature of copper, any amount of sticking in the chamber could very likely result in the extractor ripping the rimfire rim off the case, or pulling through the rim, leaving an empty case stuck in the chamber.
That very issue, stuck copper cases, was a big problem with the early Trapdoor rifles chambered in .50-70 and the early .45-70 rounds. The chamber would foul a bit, the case would become stuck, and the extractor would rip through.
the kind of deep drawing of brass necessary to make cartridge cases larger than a pistol case wasn't possible at this time. It didn't truly become possible until the late 1800s, and even then balloon head cases, which are easier to draw than the solid head cases we have to day, stayed standard in commercial ammunition well into the 20th century.
Cartridge cases of the Civil War era, up through the early 1880s, were primarily drawn copper.
Copper is far softer and easier to work than brass, and it was possible to use it.
But, that comes at a price... Being far more maleable, copper "sticks" to the chamber a lot more tenaciously while there is pressure in the barrel, making a blowback weapon any larger than a .22 questionable at best.
And, because of the nature of copper, any amount of sticking in the chamber could very likely result in the extractor ripping the rimfire rim off the case, or pulling through the rim, leaving an empty case stuck in the chamber.
That very issue, stuck copper cases, was a big problem with the early Trapdoor rifles chambered in .50-70 and the early .45-70 rounds. The chamber would foul a bit, the case would become stuck, and the extractor would rip through.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Finally, had Lee pulled off his invasion of Maryland and returned to Virginia without battle, it would have demonstrated to France and England the Confederacy's viability (like Saratoga did during the Revolution). Foreign recognition, aid and assistance would have made Union victory less likely. By 1863, it was already off the table for the European powers. England wouldn't and Napoleon III would not act without England's concurrent consent."
I think Lincoln could have effectively neutralized the threat of foreign intervention in the war, even had the South kept winning, by simply releasing the Emancipation Proclamation no matter what was happening.
The last thing England and France wanted was the war to be about slavery, for them to be seen to be supporting the cause of slavery.
There are good indications that Lincoln had the Emancipation Proclamation in his desk in at least a draft form as early as fall 1861.
Lincoln issued the preliminary proclamation in September 1862, at a time when the South was still fairly well in control on the battlefield.
From that point going forward it is very unlikely that Britain and France would have intervened even had Gettysburg been a Southern victory.
After Lincoln signed the proclamation on January 1, 1863, Europe was out of the war no matter what happened.
I think Lincoln could have effectively neutralized the threat of foreign intervention in the war, even had the South kept winning, by simply releasing the Emancipation Proclamation no matter what was happening.
The last thing England and France wanted was the war to be about slavery, for them to be seen to be supporting the cause of slavery.
There are good indications that Lincoln had the Emancipation Proclamation in his desk in at least a draft form as early as fall 1861.
Lincoln issued the preliminary proclamation in September 1862, at a time when the South was still fairly well in control on the battlefield.
From that point going forward it is very unlikely that Britain and France would have intervened even had Gettysburg been a Southern victory.
After Lincoln signed the proclamation on January 1, 1863, Europe was out of the war no matter what happened.
Not arguing with you Mike You made some very good points. Lincoln did preoare it earlier and could have released the Emancipation Proclamation earlier, but he wanted a victory first. The EP politically changed the originally course of the war from preserving the Union. A lot of democrats would have been upset. The victory placated them and made it more acceptable.
Back on topic of a full automatic Civil War weapon so devastating that its mere presence would cause the opposition to sue for peace. A simple cartridge could have been like the early Gatling cartridges - almost bored through metal tubes with recessed nipple so as to keep it tubular. They could easily be reloaded and in a steam power Ager Coffee Mill gun it would have worked. A water driller could reduce the fouling as it fired.
Gee, if I go to gunsmithing school, I wonder if they will let me do this as a school project?
Back on topic of a full automatic Civil War weapon so devastating that its mere presence would cause the opposition to sue for peace. A simple cartridge could have been like the early Gatling cartridges - almost bored through metal tubes with recessed nipple so as to keep it tubular. They could easily be reloaded and in a steam power Ager Coffee Mill gun it would have worked. A water driller could reduce the fouling as it fired.
Gee, if I go to gunsmithing school, I wonder if they will let me do this as a school project?
Mike Irwin
Staff
Lincoln wanted a victory yes, but I really think he was saavy enough to know that emancipation was by far his best and ultimate weapon against European intervention. I have no doubt that US ambassadors to France and Britain knew of it and were prepared to drop that nugget if it became necessary.
The cartridge concept you speak of was used for several designs during the war but it was difficult to keep spent caps from jamming the machanism of the guns in which it was tried.
A far more successful concept was the Requa Battery Gun, but it was really artillery. The few times it was used it proved to be successful with a decent rate of fire but like other guns of the time quickly overheated and couldnt maintain the rate of fire.
By far the most successful multi round gun of the war was the Napoleon smoothbore firing cannister or grape. It had better range than any smallarm and the large balls, about an inch in diameter, were lethal as hell over a mile or so. But, again, artillery.
One historian I read many years ago supposed that upwards of 90% of the casualties during Picketts charge were due to cannister and, starting at about 700 yards, double cannister.
The cartridge concept you speak of was used for several designs during the war but it was difficult to keep spent caps from jamming the machanism of the guns in which it was tried.
A far more successful concept was the Requa Battery Gun, but it was really artillery. The few times it was used it proved to be successful with a decent rate of fire but like other guns of the time quickly overheated and couldnt maintain the rate of fire.
By far the most successful multi round gun of the war was the Napoleon smoothbore firing cannister or grape. It had better range than any smallarm and the large balls, about an inch in diameter, were lethal as hell over a mile or so. But, again, artillery.
One historian I read many years ago supposed that upwards of 90% of the casualties during Picketts charge were due to cannister and, starting at about 700 yards, double cannister.