Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Gatling gun on an ironclad?

Expand Messages
  • Carl Williams
    Then again, a Wikipedia writer says Admiral Porter bought a Gatling and provides a reference. Presumably both Butler and Porter used private funds. Wikipedia
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
      Then again, a Wikipedia writer says Admiral Porter bought a Gatling
      and provides a reference. Presumably both Butler and Porter used
      private funds. Wikipedia doesn't say what happened to Porter's gun.

      see:

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

      apologies for misspelling Gatling in prior post

      Carl
    • Carl Williams
      I seem to be in a mood for this sort of thing this morning. In some ways, evidently, the Gatling merely improved on some existing ideas. Get a load of this:
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
        I seem to be in a mood for this sort of thing this morning.

        In some ways, evidently, the Gatling merely improved on some existing
        ideas. Get a load of this:

        The Puckle Gun:

        "In 1718, Puckle demonstrated ... a tripod-mounted, single-barreled
        flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder, designed
        for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel [had] a pre-loaded
        "cylinder" which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in 7 minutes
        at a time when the standard soldier's musket could at best be loaded
        and fired three times per minute..."

        Flintlock? wow

        For the ACW, in particular the idea of revolving charged chambers and
        multiple barrels for controlled cooling was not new. Gatling's gun
        though had a "gravity feed reloading mechanism, which allowed
        unskilled operators to achieve a relatively high rate of fire."
        Presumably the invention of the percussion cap and concurrent new
        design ideas for cartridges played a big role. [Gatling used a paper
        cartridge]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_Gun#The_Puckle_gun
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun
      • keeno2@aol.com
        In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@yahoo.com writes: I seem to be in a mood for this sort of thing this morning. When
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
          In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@... writes:
          I seem to be in a mood for this sort of thing this morning.
          When the subject was first raised, my first thought was the snipers who fired on all Union ships from the banks of the Mississippi. A little strafing from a Gatlin could have been used to depress that sort of activity. But then, what's the use of the equivalent of an entire regiment loosing a volley against a puff of smoke? You keep his head down until you're out of range. Not exactly cost effective. Not a real deterrent so long as the sniper has a rock or a large tree to duck behind after his damage has been done.
           
          But it remains that very few were built (a dozen or so?), so their actual use was very limited.
           
          Ole



        • Dave Gorski
          The Gatling gun prior to 1865 had many problems. Among them, often the bores of the six barrels failed to align with the chambers. The U.S. Army purchased
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
            The Gatling gun prior to 1865 had many problems. Among
            them, often the bores of the six barrels failed to align with the
            chambers. The U.S. Army purchased NONE of Gatling's guns.
            This may have also been due to the falling out of favor of another
            rapid fire weapon, the " Coffee Mill Gun." This weapon was
            prone to breakdown, and was even dangerous to operate.
            A major problem with all rapid fire weapons was that the quality
            of powder used caused fouling after only a few minutes. This
            problem was not corrected until after the war.

            A purchase of 12 Gatling guns was made by Maj. General Ben
            Butler out of his own pocket, and it was these guns that were used
            at Petersburg, the only action Gatling guns saw during the Civil War.

            In January of 1865, after many improvements including going
            to a rim fire copper case cartridge, it was officially adopted by
            the U. S. in 1866.
            The Army misunderstood the potential of the Gatling Gun however,
            assigning it to artillery use, rather than as an infantry infantry weapon.

            Regards, Dave Gorski
          • bango1375
            ... War. ... weapon. ... Is it known of how many casualties the gatling gun inflicted at Petersburg?
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Dave Gorski <amhistoryguy@...>
              wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > The Gatling gun prior to 1865 had many problems. Among
              > them, often the bores of the six barrels failed to align with the
              > chambers. The U.S. Army purchased NONE of Gatling's guns.
              > This may have also been due to the falling out of favor of another
              > rapid fire weapon, the " Coffee Mill Gun." This weapon was
              > prone to breakdown, and was even dangerous to operate.
              > A major problem with all rapid fire weapons was that the quality
              > of powder used caused fouling after only a few minutes. This
              > problem was not corrected until after the war.
              >
              > A purchase of 12 Gatling guns was made by Maj. General Ben
              > Butler out of his own pocket, and it was these guns that were used
              > at Petersburg, the only action Gatling guns saw during the Civil
              War.
              >
              > In January of 1865, after many improvements including going
              > to a rim fire copper case cartridge, it was officially adopted by
              > the U. S. in 1866.
              > The Army misunderstood the potential of the Gatling Gun however,
              > assigning it to artillery use, rather than as an infantry infantry
              weapon.
              >
              > Regards, Dave Gorski
              >




              Is it known of how many casualties the gatling gun inflicted at
              Petersburg?
            • Sweetsstar@aol.com
              From what I have read none. **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
                From what I have read none. 



              • hank9174
                ... who ... little strafing ... activity. But then, ... volley against ... Not ... has a rock or a ... similar to my thoughts, ole... Ironclads are not
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 12, 2009
                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
                  > carlw4514@... writes:
                  >
                  > I seem to be in a mood for this sort of thing this morning.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > When the subject was first raised, my first thought was the snipers
                  who
                  > fired on all Union ships from the banks of the Mississippi. A
                  little strafing
                  > from a Gatlin could have been used to depress that sort of
                  activity. But then,
                  > what's the use of the equivalent of an entire regiment loosing a
                  volley against
                  > a puff of smoke? You keep his head down until you're out of range.
                  Not
                  > exactly cost effective. Not a real deterrent so long as the sniper
                  has a rock or a
                  > large tree to duck behind after his damage has been done.
                  >

                  similar to my thoughts, ole...

                  Ironclads are not anti-personnel weapons. They are built to seek out
                  and destroy enemy ships, hence they throw 60, 120 even 350 pound
                  rounds. An enemy ship is a target; a lone enemy gunman is a waste of
                  ammunition.

                  That said, every ship carries rifle-toting Marines, or other men,
                  providing close support for boarding and, perhaps, snipers...


                  HankC
                • Carl Williams
                  I wonder what Porter was going to do with one, if it s true he purchased one
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 12, 2009
                    I wonder what Porter was going to do with one, if it's true he
                    purchased one

                    > That said, every ship carries rifle-toting Marines, or other men,
                    > providing close support for boarding and, perhaps, snipers...
                    >
                    >
                    > HankC
                    >
                  • hank9174
                    ... I often wonder that of many purchases of the latest and greatest ;) HankC
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 13, 2009
                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > I wonder what Porter was going to do with one, if it's true he
                      > purchased one
                      >

                      I often wonder that of many purchases of the 'latest and greatest' ;)


                      HankC
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.